MONSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES MARCH 27, 2014
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Beaudoin, David Jarvis, Frank Carey, Ronald Fussell, Tere Hrynkiw and John Martin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott O’Neil
Chairman David Beaudoin convened the meeting at 7:35.
Frank Carey moved to accept the minutes of February 27, 2014 as presented.
Dave Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
7:40 David Beaudoin reconvened a public hearing for C. Howard Johnson and Karen Frickenhaus 13 Lakeshore Drive to review a request for a variance from the requirements of the Monson Zoning Bylaws Table 2 Dimensional and Density Regulations. The petitioners propose to construct a garage and shed that does not conform to the required front setback of fifty (50’) feet in a rural residential district.
Also Present: Karen Frickenhaus, C. Howard Johnson and John Field.
Karen Frickenhaus stated they met informally with the Monson Conservation Commission to determine the impacts the proposed construction would have relative to the Wetland Protection Act. The latest proposal is an attempt to satisfy both the Conservation Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals and still construct both the garage and shed.
Karen Frickenhaus showed three plans to the Board members numbered 1, 2 and 3 and gave an overview of the plans. She stated plan 3 is the plan preferred by the Conservation Commission the garage has been moved back and angled to avoid the existing deck; the shed has been turned and is closer to the road to avoid the wetland and to reduce the number of trees that have to be removed. The existing driveway is to be widened to accommodate parking and the auxiliary parking widened to provide parking. The closest point of the proposed garage would be 20’ 8” from the front property line and the closest point of the proposed shed 12’ 8” from the front property line.
David Beaudoin read correspondence from The Monson Conservation Commission dated March 12, 2014 a copy of which is incorporated into these minutes and attached hereto stating that Plan #3 has the least amount of grading and site disturbance (tree removal) and therefore is in the best interest of the riverfront and waterfront areas. The proposed driveway will be composed of permeable material to allow for infiltration of both runoff and precipitation at the site.
David Jarvis questioned the setbacks from the front property line on Plan 2?
Karen Frickenhaus stated the closest point of the garage on Plan 2 from the front property line is 23’ and the driveway moved to access the property from the existing auxiliary driveway. The Conservation Commission is concerned with the stability of the existing slope and felt that the plan would result in the removal of too many large trees that may impact the slope. Ms. Frickenhaus stated on Plan 1 the garage is located away from the house and close to the top of the slope and the shed moved closer to the house. The Commission was not in favor of this plan because of the amount of excavation for the garage close to the top of the slope.
C. Howard Johnson stated Mr. Tom Moore a contractor in Town and someone who is familiar with the neighborhood recommended Plan 3.
Ronald Fussell questioned if the driveway was to be paved?
Karen Frickenhaus stated no the Conservation Commission prefers that both the existing driveway and auxiliary driveway are constructed with a permeable surface.
Ronald Fussell questioned if the petitioners owned the adjacent lot?
Karen Frickenhaus stated they did, it is not a building lot but was purchased to add to their existing property.
David Jarvis questioned why the shed in Plan 3 is three feet closer to the front property line than the plan the Board received with the application?
Karen Frickenhaus stated it was to accommodate issues raised by the Conservation Commission.
David Jarvis stated the original plan located the shed fifteen feet from the front property line and the Board was not in favor of that, this plan moves it three feet closer.
David Beaudoin questioned how the Board members felt about Plan 1 that locates the proposed garage closer to the front property line?
It was the consensus of the Board members that Plan #1 was not acceptable because the garage was located too close to the front property line.
David Beaudoin stated plan 2 locates the garage 23 feet from the front property line and the shed pretty much in line with the garage.
Karen Frickenhaus stated the Commission was not in favor of Plan 2 because it would result in the loss of so much vegetation and large trees. The Commission was concerned with the stability of the slope. She stated she was showing the Board Plans 1 and 2 to demonstrate how much effort and thought has been put into Plan 3 to satisfy both the Conservation Commission and Zoning Board.
Frank Carey stated he was concerned that the proposed shed would only be 12’ 8” from the front property line.
David Jarvis stated he had the same concern with the location of the shed.
Ronald Fussell questioned why when the petitioners planned an addition and deck to the existing home they did not plan for a garage. The location of the addition and deck has made it very difficult to locate a garage that is no closer to the road than the existing house.
Karen Frickenhaus stated they did not realize that the location of the temporary storage was in violation of the Zoning Bylaws and planned to put a garage where the temporary structure was.
C. Howard Johnson questioned what would be acceptable to the Board?
John Martin questioned if the shed could be moved back?
Karen Frickenhaus stated that they had an informal discussion with the Conservation Commission to determine if they had to file with them, and if they did what kind of filing would it be a Request for Determination or a Notice of Intent?
Ronald Fussell questioned the deck roof structure?
Karen Frickenhaus stated the deck roof overhangs almost 3 feet and it is proposed to have an overhang on the garage. She stated aesthetics were important to her and angling the proposed garage and moving it further back than the temporary structure was certainly less intrusive.
C. Howard Johnson stated the Zoning Board approved a house 20 feet from the front property line at 124 Lakeshore Drive.
David Beaudoin stated the developer merged three lots into one lot for a single family home. The Zoning Board approved the variance for a home but that is not to say it would approve a garage or shed on that lot.
David Beaudoin questioned how the Board members felt about the location of the garage 20’ 8” from the front property line as shown on Plan 3?
Ronald Fussell stated he was uncomfortable voting for a garage that was only 20’ 8” from the front property line.
David Jarvis stated he was not necessarily comfortable but felt the petitioners had made every attempt to satisfy the concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Conservation Commission given the topography of their property. He stated he could vote in favor because of the slope on the property.
Tere Hrynkiw stated she agreed with Mr. Jarvis.
David Beaudoin questioned how the Board felt about the shed?
David Jarvis stated Plan 3 locates the shed closer to the front property line than Plans 1 and 2 and he was uncomfortable with approving a plan for an accessory building that close to the front property line.
Karen Frickenhaus stated the slope and proximity to the water precludes anything to the rear of the property.
David Beaudoin stated he would not vote in favor of a plan that showed a building that close to the front property line. If the shed was the same distance from the front property line as the garage 20’ 8” he would be comfortable with that.
David Jarvis stated he agreed with David Beaudoin.
Ronald Fussell questioned if it was out of the question to put something under the garage instead of a separate shed?
Karen Frickenhaus stated the amount of excavation that would be needed would be problematic for the Conservation Commission. At the informal meeting the Commission stressed that the excavation and removal of large trees would be a major issue.
John Field questioned the location of the septic system?
Karen Frickenhaus stated it was in front of the house.
C. Howard Johnson stated their neighbors who live on Lakeshore Drive are in favor of this project.
David Beaudoin stated a garage would certainly improve the look of the property because the blue tarps would be gone.
Karen Frickenhaus questioned if the Board would make a decision conditioned on the submission of a plan that moves the shed back on the property to a location no closer than 20’ 8” from the front property line?
David Beaudoin stated if the Board was to issue a decision with that condition, language would also be included that if the petitioners’ failed to provide the Board with a signed stamped surveyed plan showing the proposed shed and garage no closer to the front property line than twenty (20) feet and eight (8) inches within fourteen (14) days of the closing of the public hearing the conditional approval would be rescinded.
David Jarvis moved to close the public hearing at 8:45 P.m.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
David Jarvis moved to conditionally approve the request for a variance for the location of a garage and garden shed that shall be located no closer to the front property line than twenty (20) feet eight (8) inches from the front property line with conditions:
- The petitioners shall submit to the Board within fourteen (14) days of the close of the Public Hearing a stamped and signed plan prepared by a Professional Land Surveyor that locates the proposed garage and shed no closer to the front property line than twenty (20) feet eight (8) inches. If the petitioners fail to provide the plan within the stated time the conditional approval shall be rescinded.
- The variance for the construction of a garage and shed is granted based up a plan prepared by Michael D. Smith, PLS, Smith Associates Surveyors, Inc. dated 2/4/2014, revised 3/25/2014 and 4/2/2014.
- All other setbacks shall be in conformance with the requirements of Section 3.2 Dimensional and Density Regulations of the Monson Zoning Bylaws.
- This variance shall not take effect until this decision of the Board has been recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.
- This approval does not relieve the applicant, or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state or local statutes, bylaws or regulations.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted.
Voting in favor: David Beaudoin, David Jarvis, Frank Carey and Tere Hrynkiw.
Voting to deny: Ronald Fussell.
The Board found the slopes on the property and the proximity of a pond and a perennial stream limits the land available for construction of accessory buildings.
The Board found that the petitioners have made every effort to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Monson Conservation Commission by locating the garage and shed as close to the non-conforming setback of the existing house and as far away as possible from the water courses and the severe slopes on the property.
The Board found that the relief sought would not be detrimental to the public good and would not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent of the Zoning Bylaw.
The Board found that the proposed construction was in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and the zoning district in which the property is located.
Frank Carey moved to adjourn at 9:00 P.M.
David Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
